[wyldckat]

I've tested the case you sent me and sent back the adapted case.

Note: I've renamed "omega" to "Omega" in the variables file, to avoid name collision with the "omega" turbulence field.

Indeed, "boolean" is not supported on the test types:

Conditional operator

The conditional operator ( test ? val1 : val2) is defined for scalars and vectors

You'll have to change the "boolean" back to scalars, using something like:

wall_right=a<b ? 1 : 0;

And then test it accordingly:

wall_right == 1 ? a : b;

[immortality]

thank you for all things.thus now i can continue the work.
I'll test it and tell you by editing this post.
........
Now the error on this trouble is resolved completely.
Thank you very much.

[gschaider]

Originally Posted by wyldckat

I've tested the case you sent me and sent back the adapted case.

Note: I've renamed "omega" to "Omega" in the variables file, to avoid name collision with the "omega" turbulence field.

Indeed, "boolean" is not supported on the test types:


You'll have to change the "boolean" back to scalars, using something like:

wall_right=a<b ? 1 : 0;

And then test it accordingly:

wall_right == 1 ? a : b;

Did IO understand it correctly: before you had a variable "test= a<b;" and it couldn't be used like this "test ? val1 : val2". That is possible, butI'd consider it a bug

[immortality]

Hi Bernhard.
I reply instead of Bruno.yes Boolean doesn't work in spite of my expectation.

[wyldckat]

Greetings to all!

Originally Posted by gschaider

Did IO understand it correctly: before you had a variable "test= a<b;" and it couldn't be used like this "test ? val1 : val2". That is possible, butI'd consider it a bug

OK, I'll make a note to file a bug report this coming weekend

Best regards,
Bruno

[immortality]

Hi
you want to report the bug to where?
Isn't it a groovyBC probelm?or OF?

[wyldckat]

Hi Ehsan,

It's a bug in groovyBC. As for reporting bugs about groovyBC: http://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/Co...#Bug_reporting

Best regards,
Bruno

[immortality]

why we should report there?while Bernhard knows it now himself?is it necessary to send the file?
Well then i have discovered a bug in groovyBC at last!
I was engaged with it and tell it to Bernhard 1.5 month ago but none of us got it serious enough

[gschaider]

Originally Posted by immortality

why we should report there?while Bernhard knows it now himself?is it necessary to send the file?

It is necessary because it is not the only bug/enhancement that is pending. Now I know it, but you'd be surprised how quick I forget stuff that doesn't concern me. So if you rely on my memory chances are good that the bug will never get fixed. If it is in the bug report system I can't forget it. Also: why do you expect me to spend the time fixing a bug that hasn't been a problem for me yet if you can't be bothered to file a proper bug-report

[immortality]

OK.i'll report it.
you are right.you maybe forget it.

[immortality]

Hi dear Bernhard
I reported it some times before that you provided 0.2.4 version.
have you managed to fix it (Boolean problem in variables) in new version?

[Bernhard]

It's your problem, not Bernhard Gschaider's. Just check the status of the bug report, or install the new thing. If you are too lazy to test this, it's not that big of a deal to you.

[immortality]

It's your problem, not Bernhard Gschaider's. Just check the status of the bug report, or install the new thing. If you are too lazy to test this, it's not that big of a deal to you.

its very better for you to be polite.I had looked at My report status before,was NOT need you to tell.I asked to real Bernhard Gschaider not blank Bernharrd,nobody forced you to speak rudely,its obvious from the posts who is more lazier,go and get your prize if you can find a bug in Swak4Foam like me,in return to go around and looking forward to insult people like jelous guys.
for better thinking you have to know,its not anyone problem.it was a problem in Swak4Foam that I discovered

[immortality]

Hi dear Bernhard
it has remained in 0.2.4 still and seems hasn't been corrected:

- From dictionary: /home/ehsan/Desktop/Central/Laminar_WR/WR_centralFoam3/processor2/0/T.boundaryField.left
Evaluating expression "(port3) ? T_3 : T_1"
[2]
[2]
[2]     From function parsingValue
[2]     in file lnInclude/CommonValueExpressionDriverI.H at line 1081.
[2]
FOAM parallel run exiting
[2]     From function ConcretePluginFunction<DriverType>::exists

in file lnInclude/ConcretePluginFunction.C at line 111
Constructor table of plugin functions for PatchValueExpressionDriver is not initialized
[0]
[0]
[0] --> FOAM FATAL ERROR:
[0]  Parser Error for driver PatchValueExpressionDriver at "1.2-6" :"field port3 not existing or of wrong type"
"(port3) ? T_3 : T_1"
^^^^^
---|

Context of the error:


- From dictionary: /home/ehsan/Desktop/Central/Laminar_WR/WR_centralFoam3/processor0/0/T.boundaryField.left
Evaluating expression "(port3) ? T_3 : T_1"
[0]
[0]
[0]     From function parsingValue
[0]     in file lnInclude/CommonValueExpressionDriverI.H at line 1081.
[0]
FOAM parallel run exiting
[0]

[3]
[3] --> FOAM FATAL ERROR:
[3]  Parser Error for driver PatchValueExpressionDriver at "1.2-6" :"field port3 not existing or of wrong type"
"(port3) ? T_3 : T_1"
^^^^^
---|

[gschaider]

Originally Posted by immortality

Hi dear Bernhard
it has remained in 0.2.4 still and seems hasn't been corrected:

That is right. Release 0.2.4 was rolled before that issue even came up. Will be fixed in the next release. The bug report is there but due to other obligations it is unlikely that I will get to it this week

[immortality]

Hi dear Bernhard
I got the same error in mercurial repository version:

- From dictionary: /home/ehsan/Desktop/WR_2/processor1/0/p.boundaryField.right
Evaluating expression "(port2) ? p_2 : p_4"
[1]
[1]
[1]     From function parsingValue
[1]     in file lnInclude/CommonValueExpressionDriverI.H at line --> FOAM FATAL ERROR:
[0]  Parser Error for driver PatchValueExpressionDriver at "1.9" :"syntax error, unexpected '?', expecting $end"
"(port2) ? p_2 : p_4"
^
----------|

Context of the error:


- From dictionary: /home/ehsan/Desktop/WR_2/processor0/0/p.boundaryField.right
Evaluating expression "(port2) ? p_2 : p_4"
[0]
[0]
[0]     From function parsingValue
[0]     in file lnInclude/CommonValueExpressionDriverI.H at line 1160.
[0] 1160.
[1]
FOAM parallel run exiting
[1]

FOAM parallel run exiting
[0]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPI_ABORT was invoked on rank 0 in communicator MPI_COMM_WORLD
with errorcode 1.

NOTE: invoking MPI_ABORT causes Open MPI to kill all MPI processes.
You may or may not see output from other processes, depending on
exactly when Open MPI kills them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mpirun has exited due to process rank 0 with PID 12740 on
node Ehsan-com exiting without calling "finalize". This may
have caused other processes in the application to be
terminated by signals sent by mpirun (as reported here).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Ehsan-com:12734] 1 more process has sent help message help-mpi-api.txt / mpi-abort
[Ehsan-com:12734] Set MCA parameter "orte_base_help_aggregate" to 0 to see all help / error messages
Killing PID 12731
 PyFoam WARNING on line 232 of file /usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/PyFoam/Execution/FoamThread.py : Process 12731 was already dead

when I have:

right
    {
        type groovyBC;
        #include "include/variables_R"
        fractionExpression "(port2 && M2<1) || (port4 && M4<1)  ? 1 : 0";
        valueExpression "(port2) ? p_2 : p_4";
        value $internalField;
        gradientExpression "0"; 
        
    }

what may be wrong?
it gives some error like:

- From dictionary: /home/ehsan/Desktop/WR_2/processor1/0/gas.boundaryField.left
Evaluating expression "(port3==1) ?  1 : 0"

while port3 is a boolean variable.

[immortality]

Hi Bernhard
it works fine.but if add some flexibility it will be more nice.for example if we had : bool_variable==1 ? somethingther thing;
it gives an error while
bool_variable ? somethingther thing;
works nice.
its good so in your opinion? maybe you have another view.

[wyldckat]

Hi Ehsan,

Can you please share an extremely simple example case for what you're asking? Something like a modified cavity tutorial with the boundary condition or expression in question?

Because personally I did try to look at the bug report and all I found was the very complex example of the "variables" file, without any case attached to it

Please remember that time is not abundant to every one on this thread!

Best regards,
Bruno

[gschaider]

Originally Posted by immortality

Hi Bernhard
it works fine.but if add some flexibility it will be more nice.for example if we had : bool_variable==1 ? somethingther thing;
it gives an error while
bool_variable ? somethingther thing;
works nice.
its good so in your opinion? maybe you have another view.

The constants to be used with boolean variables in swak are true and false. This is stated at least two times in the reference documentation found in the Documentation-folder of the swak-sources

So bool_variable==true should work